Have you noticed that companies, shops & supermarkets use many different slogans and symbols to promote their products as free from animal testing? Have you wondered what they really mean? asks Angela Roberts

Having spent a lot of time over the past 12 years out and about on the streets of Britain holding anti-vivisection information stalls, I know that many people are unclear about different companies' animal testing policies. In fact, many people think that animal testing has stopped altogether and are surprised to learn that their regular brands are made by companies who still test on animals for cosmetics, Procter & Gamble (P&G) being one of them.
In this article I aim to cast some light on the labelling issue and to look at some specific companies.

Cosmetic testing on animals is banned in the UK. This ban is not written into law and was brought in only at the point when virtually none of these kinds of experiments were taking place in the UK anyway. Many products for sale in the UK are made by multinational companies, so are unaffected by the ban.

Despite this "ban" Animal Aid has recently discovered that hundreds of mice are used and killed in tests for the increasingly popular anti-wrinkle treatment Botox. The mice are subjected to the highly controversial LD50 (lethal dose 50%) which was outlawed in the UK in 1999 - except where there are "exceptional scientific grounds”. More evidence that strict regulation of animal experiments in the UK is a myth. Log on to: www.animalaid.org.uk for more information.

The first point to remember is that companies will go to great lengths to encourage you to buy their goods. Relentless advertising is one approach - being economical with the truth is another. When it comes to animal testing statements, many companies focus on products. Stating 'this product is not tested on animals'. What they don't mention is the ingredients used in the finished product and whether or not these have been tested on animals. Other companies use images of rabbit logos. Some use vague statements such as 'against animal testing'. The term 'dermatologically tested' simply means tested on skin - usually not human skin!

What these statements and logos do is give the impression that the products and ingredients in question are not tested on animals. But how honest are they really?

What is a fixed-cut-off-date (FCOD), what do the Humane Cosmetics Standard & the Humane Household Products Standard (HCS/HHPS) mean and what about the 5 year rolling rule (5YRR)?

Let's begin by dismissing the 5YRR. This is a system whereby a company will not buy any ingredients that have been tested on animals in the last 5 years. Which means, of course, that in 5 years time they will be using ingredients that are being tested on animals now! This system does nothing to stop animal testing. Unfortunately, Superdrug have abandoned their previously strong stance on animal testing by adopting the 5YRR.

The FCOD is simply the latest date at which any ingredients used have been tested on animals. Some companies have very early FCOD, which shows a long-term commitment to avoiding animal tested ingredients. However, several companies have adopted a FCOD for a number of years and have then reversed their stance in order to use more recently tested ingredients. Superdrug and Tesco currently fall into this category - clearly demonstrating their lack of commitment in helping to stop animal testing. The Naturewatch Compassionate Shopping Guide uses the FCOD criteria for the companies recommended and the new 9th edition gives up-to-date information on hundreds of companies animal testing policies. It covers a wide range of products including household cleaning products.

The Humane Cosmetics Standard & the Humane Household Products Standard are the strictest criteria of all, requiring not only a FCOD and assurances from ingredients suppliers but it also requires that companies submit to an independent audit. Devised by the BUAV - they are internationally recognised "kitemarks" for cruelty-free. Some companies will appear in the Naturewatch Guide because they do have a FCOD, but won't be recommended by the BUAV because they have not signed up to the HCS/HHPS.

Why do so many companies continue to test on animals?

For profit! Companies like P&G are continually testing "new to the world chemicals" as they like to refer to them. They do this in the hope of finding new chemicals that will improve and enhance their products to give them a competitive edge over their rivals. P&G are chasing L'Oreal's market and I recently took part in some market research which suggested to me that Johnson & Johnson have their eye on some of P&G's market! The result is shelf upon shelf of shampoos and face creams all promising to give us "hair that really shines" or "younger looking skin", and washing powders that promise "whiter whites". Never mind that our atmosphere, oceans, homes and bodies are being flooded with thousands of unnecessary and hazardous synthetic chemicals. Years of intensive lobbying has lead the EU to agree a testing ban - by 2009! A potential ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics in Europe could be in force by 2013 (despite opposition by the UK Government and companies such as P&G). While the bans are welcome news, the long delays and potential loopholes are very disappointing. It also reinforces the crucial role of consumer boycotts. If politicians are too cowardly to do the right thing, consumers themselves can bring direct pressure to bear on cruel corporations by voting with their purses.

Indeed, according to the annual Ethical Purchasing Index 2003 (published by the Cooperative Bank), boycotts by ethically-minded consumers are costing big brands £2.6 billion a year! The total value in 2002 of UK ethical consumption was £19.9 billion. Sales of ethically-marketed goods and services totalled £6.9 billion, a 13% increase on 2001. The report also revealed that 52% of consumers claim to have boycotted at least one product in the last 12 months and, very significantly, two-thirds of consumers claim not to return to a brand once they have boycotted it.